The Gagarin inter-district prosecutor's office of Moscow is confidently gaining a reputation as a conveyor for stamping criminal cases. Prosecutor Pavel Kobzarev, who is considered a protege of the Deputy Prosecutor of Moscow, Yuri Katasonov, uses his resources to put pressure on citizens objectionable to his environment in order to maintain useful connections right and left.


So, at the direction of Kobzarev, three very strange criminal cases appeared against businessman Kirill Safonov. These cases, despite their simplicity and everyday nature, are under the control of Kobzarev himself. He supervises with surprising intensity the investigation of cases related to the family divorce of an entrepreneur with his wife.


Family ties found out what is the reason for such close attention of the interdistrict prosecutor. It turns out that Safonov's ex-wife, Irina, has an influential father, Alexei Gusev, a former employee of the Foreign Ministry and current teacher at the Military Academy of the Russian Ministry of Defense. In the center of the divorce process is the division of real estate of young people. At some point, the ex-wife, who had gone to another man, told Safonov that if he did not voluntarily give her 90 percent of all jointly acquired property, he would “leave him without pants.” At the same time, the girl referred to her father's connections in the prosecutor's office. The ex-husband refused such an unprofitable exchange, especially since the division of property was already underway in court.


Clouds gathered over the businessman. It is clear that divorce is always a personal tragedy, especially when it comes to relationships with children. At the peak of the scandal, the sixteen-year-old son of Safonov took the side of his mother and her new partner and was rude to his father. He, too, flared up, and gave his hand a slap in the face to his offspring. So there was a case of intentional infliction of minor bodily harm. Here it must be said that the doctors did not record any injuries in the teenager, but an influential family connected the resource and lobbied for the diagnosis of “concussion”. And miracles began.


pressure tactics


In the police department "Obruchevsky" a case appeared against businessman Kirill Safonov about the intentional infliction of minor bodily harm (part 1 of article 115 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Such cases fall under the category of private prosecution and are initiated by filing an application with the Magistrate's Court. But not at this time.


Around midnight, an investigative-operational group headed by one of the leaders of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs "Obruchevsky" arrived at Safonov's home. Employees suddenly needed to confiscate weapons from Safonov, which he legally owned (the video is at the disposal of the editors).


If you follow the criminal procedure code, then the interest of the police in weapons may well be justified if “a person may have tools, equipment or other means of committing a crime, objects, documents and valuables that may be relevant to a criminal case.” What relation to a slap in the face to a arrogant teenager has a weapon, the body of inquiry did not explain. But the urgency and importance of the criminal case made the police forget that investigative actions at night are prohibited, except in urgent cases.


It became obvious that the ex-wife's threats worked and her family managed to launch the promised scheme of pressure and intimidation of their ex.


By the way, in the Gagarinsky District Court of Moscow, they apparently understood that the security forces went overboard in their desire to put pressure on the entrepreneur and did not satisfy the claim of the prosecutor Kobzarev to deprive Safonov of the right to keep and carry weapons. Despite this, the seized weapons were not returned.


The tactics of pressure, built on a weak corner, did not suit the attacking side and it was decided to strengthen themselves with new cases. A case arose about a broken phone and beatings on Irina Safonova. And again, their plot and actual circumstances do not stand up to criticism. And this time the judge showed prudence and acquitted Safonov in this case.


Magic Iphone


The story of the broken phone could be a plot for Kafka when black is white and white is black. The testimony of Irina Safonova says that her ex-boyfriend knocked her Apple X mobile phone out of her hands. The phone fell on the pavement and shattered into several pieces. Her cohabitant, who became an eyewitness to the events, adhered to the same version. Irina Safonova, according to her own statement, filmed the incident on this phone. Interestingly, the video that the editors have at their disposal shows that the phone fell into the grass and continued to work. You can also see how Irina Safonova picked it up and continued to shoot. Of course, Steve Jobs was a great marketer, but even he failed to create such a device that would continue to shoot, breaking into several pieces. But the investigator and the judge were not convinced.


Even in the treasury of obvious nonsense, which abounds in the case of damage to property, one can add the fact that Irina Safonova applied with a statement about damage to property six months after this event. At the same time, documents about remo didn't have any gadgets. Then the investigator appointed an examination by a private person. The phone itself was not confiscated, the expert was provided for research ... photographs of some kind of iPhone that cannot be identified. Based on these pictures, the expert came to the conclusion that in order to restore the phone, it is necessary to carry out repairs for 18 thousand rubles. On the basis of an examination based on photographs, Safonov was charged, and then convicted.


Against the law


The apotheosis of the process of taking property from the entrepreneur was the presentation of the prosecutor's office of the South-Western administrative district of Moscow to the Gagarin interdistrict prosecutor's office and the Internal Affairs Directorate for the SWAD of Moscow. initiated with gross violations of the norms of the criminal procedure and criminal codes.


Despite this, the police from the Department of Internal Affairs for the South-Western District of Moscow did not comply with the requirements of the prosecutor's office, completed the proceedings on the criminal case and sent it to the Gagarin interdistrict prosecutor's office for approval of the indictment. Prosecutor Pavel Kobzarev also testified that the higher prosecutor's office did not order him and approved the indictment and sent the case to the magistrate in the 211th judicial district of Moscow for consideration on the merits.


Here, too, a performance was played about the fact that our judicial system has not gone far from the system of the 30s of the last century, when the fate of people was decided by the notorious "troikas".


When considering the case before the magistrate, neither the court nor the prosecution paid attention to the requirements of the current legislation. The court forgot to explain the parties' right to conciliation, the public prosecutor did not hesitate to ask leading questions to the witnesses, the defense's objections were not accepted by the court, all the defense's motions were rejected, even those that the court had no right to refuse, for example, to interrogate a specialist invited by the defense, and the appearance which is provided.


A very indicative episode was when the defendant Kirill Safonov could not appear at the court session due to the fact that he was on inpatient treatment in the hospital, and the court decided to bring him to the next court session by drive from the hospital. One of the witnesses for the prosecution, a police officer (juvenile affairs inspector) Poletaeva, diligently instructed other witnesses in the corridor what kind of evidence they should give in court.


These are just a few of the violations in this lawsuit. The final of the trial in the court of first instance was the verdict by which Kirill Safonov was found guilty of causing minor bodily harm and intentional damage to property, and acquitted on charges of battery. The verdict did not suit either the prosecution or, of course, the defense side, which asked the court to acquit him on all charges.


To be continued

Mikhail Ermakov